No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[Guttersnipe]

Its all in the spin.

If you can get the message over that it is like driving at 25mph in a 30mph zone - then finding that the limit is retrospectively changed to 20mph - then great.

Exactly. It's worth watching politicians on this, stick to the message you want to get across and don't be dragged into their narrative...

Q: "but surely you have to accept people should pay their fair share. Nurse, teachers, fluffy kittens with big cute eyes pay their fair share."
A: "And in this country we have a way of defining what that fair share is: the law. If someone does everything they can to obey the law they should not be penalised if that law changes in the furture. Imagine you were driving at 25mph....."

[SLB]

Exactly. It's worth watching politicians on this, stick to the message you want to get across and don't be dragged into their narrative...

Q: "but surely you have to accept people should pay their fair share. Nurse, teachers, fluffy kittens with big cute eyes pay their fair share."
A: "And in this country we have a way of defining what that fair share is: the law. If someone does everything they can to obey the law they should not be penalised if that law changes in the furture. Imagine you were driving at 25mph....."

I'm inclined to agree that it is a bad idea. It all sounds fine in theory, but unless you've had plenty of practice at this sort of thing, you'll get turned over by the professionals who do this everyday. The Beeb jouno's will be able to cut you off and push their own lefty agenda and of course once you are off-air they can say whatever they like without giving you chance for recourse, leaving the listener with only their take on the matter.

Although I know I did absolutely nothing wrong, I've always maintained that going to joe-public with this is a bad idea. Far better for it to be sorted out behind closed doors where logic, reasoned argument and the law hold sway over shouty, emotionally led headlines in the press.

[BrilloPad]

Although I know I did absolutely nothing wrong, I've always maintained that going to joe-public with this is a bad idea.

Agreed.

Far better for it to be sorted out behind closed doors where logic, reasoned argument and the law hold sway over shouty, emotionally led headlines in the press.

But this is where it falls down. Trying to have a logic reasoned argument with HMRC is like talking to my cat. I still hope Gauke can be persuaded.

Maybe we just need a law that bans retrospective legislation to bring us into line with the civilized world. Naturally it would need to be applied retrospectively!

[Buzby]

Agreed.



Naturally it would need to be applied retrospectively!

lol

[Ninja]

George the Pious

This is an excerpt from yesterday's Hansard

"Andrew Tyrie (Chichester, Conservative)
Many Members of this House have told me of their deep concern about the development of retrospective tax measures, and the Treasury Committee shares those concerns. Does the Chancellor agree that the best way to prevent loss of revenue from avoidance schemes is to work much harder to create a simpler tax system in the beginning?

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative)
Yes, I agree that that is of course the best approach, but in the tax code of a western democracy there will inevitably be opportunities for abuse and avoidance, which we need to deal with. When it comes to retrospection, I say to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Treasury Committee, that I think the House of Commons should sanction retrospective taxation only when it is very clear that the explicit wishes of Parliament have been abused and avoided. For example, in the case of a particular UK bank that his Committee and I have corresponded about, we acted retrospectively because there was a clear breach of what Parliament had expressed, and I am very pleased to note that the bank’s new chief executive has today said that the bank will be scaling down its tax structuring activities.
"

Does anyone know whether the retrospective action against Barclays was dropped?

[helen7]

This is an excerpt from yesterday's Hansard

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative)
I think the House of Commons should sanction retrospective taxation only when it is very clear that the explicit wishes of Parliament have been abused and avoided. "

So, that is any time you think we haven't paid enough tax then.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, that is any time you think we haven't paid enough tax then.

And it brings in more than £200M !!!

[AlbionRovers]

Got a reply from Gauke from the latest toolkit and I got the same reply as for the previous one ... didn't answer a single question. Whilst initially angry at reading it, I now really think he's running out of options?

[TalkingCheese]

Railroading

Got a reply from Gauke from the latest toolkit and I got the same reply as for the previous one ... didn't answer a single question. Whilst initially angry at reading it, I now really think he's running out of options?

It seems obvious to me that they are relying on railroading this through with the hope of shutting us up and not having to answer any questions (because they cant). Why should they answer questions ? They are almighty. They can control the law. They can control the establishment. They can control and influence those that enforce the law. What a crock !

Here's to that influential body that isnt touched by the tentacles of HMRC or the governmental turncoats trying to cover their own backs for a quick (?) buck. Whether it is the Parliamentary Ombudsman, those presiding over the Tax Tribunals or those MPs with a conscience and the inclination/ability to understand what has happened, someone who can make the change will see the injustice !

Keep on keeping on...

[TAF4]

.......... someone who can make the change will see the injustice !

Keep on keeping on...

And those that see the injustice will make the change happen.

Think Hilsborough. The longer the establishment attempts to cover up and deny this travesty of legislation the greater the embarrassment for the deniers (denyers?).

I am beginning to sense desperation creeping into the Gauke responses - and luvvin' it.